[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-February-18, 06:50, said:

Correcting 16B to add "(which always includes the bid chosen)" after "logical alternatives" in a couple of places would eliminate this anomaly.

Sounds to me like you're suggesting we redefine "logical" to include (at least in some cases) the illogical too. I think that's a pretty poor approach.

[bluejak]

Poky, on 2011-February-17, 07:33, said:

I'm a simple soul. Whenever I have UI I bid as I would have bid without UI. And I do not see any problem in it. I do not see any reason why the UI should prevent me to use the AI I have available. Is there any law saying that?

But I could agree with you that some people are more skillful in using AI than others.

You made a general statement without reference to this problem. I answered it. So these comments are inappropriate:

Poky, on 2011-February-17, 13:11, said:

Well, that's maybe right, but we aren't talking about 'much of time' but about one very specific case.

Poky, on 2011-February-17, 13:11, said:

I do not think you gave an example which has much to do with our initial problem. Rather, you can tell us, what would be your ruling on the xx-KTxxx-xx-AQxx board? Do you agree with 6NTx?

because your comments were not about one specific case. I replied to your post, not to anything else, and I still consider my reply accurate and complete.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-18, 07:18, said:

Sounds to me like you're suggesting we redefine "logical" to include (at least in some cases) the illogical too. I think that's a pretty poor approach.

No, I was aiming to automatically include the selected bid among logical alternatives, in that it was chosen by the player, and was therefore logical to him or her. Do you have another method of closing the loophole, other than using 73C?

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2011-February-18, 09:01, said:

No, I was aiming to automatically include the selected bid among logical alternatives, in that it was chosen by the player, and was therefore logical to him or her. Do you have another method of closing the loophole, other than using 73C?

I have always felt that the bid chosen should count as a logical alternative even without a change in wording. After all, it made sense to the player (for whatever reason) at the time.

Surely his peers cannot be more like the player than the player himself.

[bluejak]

dburn, on 2011-February-17, 19:13, said:

Law 16 requires only that it be "illogical" to play the opponents for ten spades. Law 73, on the other hand, requires (more or less) that it be "completely impossible" to play the opponents for ten spades. This discrepancy has been highlighted before, and will be highlighted again, but nothing very much will be done about it.

Well, you could explain it to me, since it sounds nonsensical to me. Perhaps you are being over-pedantic?

lamford, on 2011-February-18, 06:50, said:

This was Grattan Endicott's response to deal with someone who does not select among logical alternatives, because nobody would choose the bid. He saw 73C as a stopgap to deal with that, although some argue that the bid chosen must always be a logical alternative. Say somebody opens 3NT fourth in hand after three passes, on Axx Axx Axx Axxx and his partner, who broke tempo, has a flawed pre-empt somewhere and the contract makes. I hope we would all adjust under 73C if we feel that we cannot catch him under 16B.

Correcting 16B to add "(which always include the bid chosen)" after "logical alternatives" in a couple of places would eliminate this anomaly.

lamford, on 2011-February-18, 09:01, said:

No, I was aiming to automatically include the selected bid among logical alternatives, in that it was chosen by the player, and was therefore logical to him or her. Do you have another method of closing the loophole, other than using 73C?

This problem has been discussed many many many times, with a variety of acceptable solutions. However, it is not of particular importance in this forum since it is not a forum for changing Laws, and it is a matter of general agreement that we adjust for UI even if the chosen action is not seen as an LA, or alternatively would not have been considered an LA if it had not been chosen.

[jallerton]

jallerton, on 2011-February-17, 16:45, said:

You seem to have overlooked the implications from the fact that (for the purposes of his own bidding) South is not allowed to know that they might have had a misunderstanding; therefore he is not allowed to take into account the fact that E/W may be trying to be clever and cater for a N/S misunderstanding.

Imagine that screens are in use and that North and South have access to an E/W system file. Responder has bid hearts naturally, his LHO has bid clubs in response to RHO's take-out double and partner has now jumped to 3♠. If RHO really has a strong jump overcall he will surely double 3♠ (whatever 3♠ means).

dburn, on 2011-February-17, 18:46, said:

I am not sure I understand this - North-South are the people who have no idea what they are doing, while East-West are the people who need access to a North-South system file in order to work out what is going on.

Yes, of course East-West do need access to a North-South system file, but the 1♥ bidder must draw all inferences from the bidding of East, West and South on the assumptions that he own 1♥ bid was natural and explained as such.

dburn, on 2011-February-17, 18:46, said:

Will he? If I (West) knew that South's 3♠ was support for his partner's imaginary spades, why would I double it with spades, instead of waiting to see where my opponents ended up? After all, if 4♠ is our side's predestined contract, I can always bid it later.

If you were West, you might come to that conclusion, yes.

But if you were North, you would not know (or be allowed to know) that West could know of a possible North/South misunderstanding. Therefore, it would not occur to you that West might be lurking with a strong jump overcall in spades or similar.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2011-February-18, 09:38, said:

But if you were North, you would not know (or be allowed to know) that West could know of a possible North/South misunderstanding. Therefore, it would not occur to you that West might be lurking with a strong jump overcall in spades or similar.

Ah, but you do know. Are you forced to "use" the UI to your own detriment? You are when you are forced to choose an inferior bid that is an LA, and I think you are here.

[jallerton]

Aardv, on 2011-February-17, 17:13, said:

Is that right Jeffrey? My understanding is that North is supposed to bid on the basis that E-W have heard South's explanation but North has not.

I don't think your understanding can be correct. If it were, then North would often be able to infer a N/S minsuderstanding from an E/W explanation. Suppose you respond 2♥ to 1NT which you play as a weak take-out. Unfortunately, partner forgets that you still play this and announces "spades". LHO bids 2♠. Are you entitled to know that LHO has, say "hearts and another suit", rather than spades?

Aardv, on 2011-February-17, 17:13, said:

I doubt that this South would ever bid 3S to show a 5-6 hand: he would automatically bid 2S and then 3S. Before splinters became popular the meaning of an unnecessary jump was a cue for partner's suit: why should that not apply here? Perhaps Ax AQxx AKQJx xx. Is there no logical alternative to risking playing in 3NT instead of slam (grand slam if you trust the club finesse)?

It may be possible to argue that 3S is an impossible bid and therefore North is allowed to remember his system. But if we deny that, I don't see how we can confidently determine that the 5-6 hand is much more likely than the cue or the splinter.

I don't think North should be allowed to remember his system unless there is no even vaguely plausible explanation for the 3♠ bid.

Clearly, if there is any significant chance that 3♠ might be a cue bid agreeing hearts, then 4♣ must be a logical alternative (though even a 9-card spade fit East/West is quite hard to believe if West would normally overcall 1♠ in preference to a take-out double with 5 of them).

Perhaps my conclusion on the meaning of 3♠ is biased by my own agreements. With most partners, I do not play splinters in competiton, other than in suits bid by opponents. I play 1♦ P 1♠ (2♥) 4♣ as natural and game forcing. My competitive system file with a couple of partners even states that non-jump new suit reverses at the 3-level are very strong but NF (e.g. 1♣ P 1♦ 2♠ 3♥). My "lunatic" view is only one answer, which is why I am curious to know how the widely the TD consulted and how he came to his "no logical alternative" conclusion.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-February-18, 10:28, said:

My competitive system file with a couple of partners even states that non-jump new suit reverses at the 3-level are very strong but NF (e.g. 1♣ P 1♦ 2♠ 3♥).

So what are the chances of partner having a hand too good to bid a natural 2S, when your RHO has doubled 1D for takeout, and your LHO had volunteered 2C? I would have said vanishingly small. And what is wrong with partner having a hand too good to raise to 4H, as suggested by Aardv, and he has produced an advance cue bid. I would be surprised if you neither play advance cue bids nor splinters in this situation - everything would have to go through 3C and if your LHO did not help by bidding a suit, it would be even more awkward. Surely the advance cuebid is much more likely than a natural and game-forcing 3S?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-February-18, 10:28, said:

I don't think your understanding can be correct. If it were, then North would often be able to infer a N/S misunderstanding from an E/W explanation. Suppose you respond 2♥ to 1NT which you play as a weak take-out. Unfortunately, partner forgets that you still play this and announces "spades". LHO bids 2♠. Are you entitled to know that LHO has, say "hearts and another suit", rather than spades?

The knowledge arises from your side's infraction, so is UI. In this case, Aardv is absolutely correct, in my view. You are using the fact that East-West did not bid spades, and you know why they probably have not from the UI. You just select the LA that is not demonstrably suggested, and that is clearly 4C.

jallerton, on 2011-February-18, 10:28, said:

I don't think North should be allowed to remember his system unless there is no even vaguely plausible explanation for the 3♠ bid.

I think we all agree on this.

[blackshoe]

"Logical" means "characterized by clear, sound reasoning". When a player makes a stupid or off-the-wall bid, that bid is not "characterized by clear, sound reasoning", and hence is illogical. You can't get around that by redefining the meaning of the term.

Grattan Endicott once told me that "logical" in this context really means something like "plausible, for the class of player involved". To which my reaction is "well then why in Hell doesn't the law say that?"

bluejak, on 2011-February-18, 09:22, said:

This problem has been discussed many many many times, with a variety of acceptable solutions. However, it is not of particular importance in this forum since it is not a forum for changing Laws, and it is a matter of general agreement that we adjust for UI even if the chosen action is not seen as an LA, or alternatively would not have been considered an LA if it had not been chosen.

Yes. But I don't have to like it.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-18, 16:46, said:

Yes. But I don't have to like it.

I am not clear: do you not like the current wording but are happy with the application?

Or, do you think it should be legal to select an illogical action even if that action is suggested over the logical alternative by the unauthorised information?

[dburn]

jallerton, on 2011-February-18, 10:28, said:

I don't think your understanding can be correct. If it were, then North would often be able to infer a N/S minsuderstanding from an E/W explanation. Suppose you respond 2♥ to 1NT which you play as a weak take-out. Unfortunately, partner forgets that you still play this and announces "spades". LHO bids 2♠. Are you entitled to know that LHO has, say "hearts and another suit", rather than spades?

I should imagine so. After all, RHO will presumably tell you that this is what it shows.

But while you're allowed to know it, you're not allowed to act as though you know it; just as while you're allowed to know as soon as you bid 1♥ (after 1♦-Double) to show spades that this was a mistake, once partner alerts you're not allowed to bid as though it was anything other than your actual agreement until the evidence that it wasn't becomes completely incontrovertible.

To answer a question posed by bluejak, this is the discrepancy between Law 16 and Law 73. If Law 73 did not exist, North in the original problem could argue that 3♠ "must be" support for North's non-existent spade suit because there is no logical alternative to that presumption (the opponents "can't have" ten spades on the bidding). So North could bid 3NT, in the knowledge that his partner has a spade stop, without being held in breach of Law 16.

But because Law 73 does exist, North can't do that. He must carefully avoid taking any advantage of UI. Well, the UI tells him that his partner has spades and not hearts. Moreover, the UI will cause him to think fantastical thoughts about his partner's bid of 3♠ - "maybe I can justify 3NT by making up a load of nonsense about not playing splinters in competition and about 2♠ being non-forcing, so partner must have a huge hand with 5-6 in spades and diamonds".

The unvarnished truth is, though, that North would not have bid 3NT if partner had explained 1♥ as "hearts". That being so, he's not allowed to do it now. Law 16 does not preclude it, but Law 73 does.

[Aardv]

One more thought: consider North's position when 3NTx comes back to him. What is supposed to be going on now? East has to be genuine, so South can't have the strong 5-6 previously envisaged unless West's take-out double was an outright psyche. I can't think of any plausible explanation, but it seems to me that North has a duty to try.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2011-February-18, 17:06, said:

I am not clear: do you not like the current wording but are happy with the application?

Or, do you think it should be legal to select an illogical action even if that action is suggested over the logical alternative by the unauthorised information?

I don't like the current wording.

[jallerton]

dburn, on 2011-February-17, 18:46, said:

But in the actual case where screens are not in use, North is in duty bound to act as though he had bid hearts to show hearts, and his partner had jumped to three spades knowing that North had hearts. That is: if it is not completely impossible that the opponents had failed to bid spades thus far despite having ten of them, South must place that construction upon the auction. Not "unlikely", not "very implausible" as helene suggests, not "virtually impossible" as jallerton suggests, but "completely impossible". At least, that is the way I understand the Laws and the way I have always ruled on committees. If I am supposed to do otherwise... well, no doubt I will be told in due course.

OK Let's try to construct the layout.

(i) South has intended 3♠ as a huge 2-suiter

North has a 2524 9-count.
South has let's says a pure 5260 16-count
West has a 4414 10-count
East has a 2245 5-count

That all adds up and seems at least vaguely plausible to me.

(ii) South has intended 3♠ as a splinter

North has a 2524 9-count.
South has let's say a 1453 17-count for his splinter raise to game opposite a 1-level response.
West has a made a free bid, so should have the odd high card. Let's give him a 3235 6-count.
That leaves East with a 7231 8-count, a couple of aces short of a strong jump overcall.

Helene used the phrase "very implausible". I used the phrase "virtually impossible". Are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not come up with bizarre psyches, such as making a take-out double on a normal pre-empetive 3♠ overcall hand? If so, I'll change my assessment of the probability of this layout to "completely impossible".

So the question is: are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not psyched when assessing the logical alternatives?

[Cascade]

jallerton, on 2011-February-19, 03:30, said:

OK Let's try to construct the layout.

(i) South has intended 3♠ as a huge 2-suiter

North has a 2524 9-count.
South has let's says a pure 5260 16-count
West has a 4414 10-count
East has a 2245 5-count

That all adds up and seems at least vaguely plausible to me.

(ii) South has intended 3♠ as a splinter

North has a 2524 9-count.
South has let's say a 1453 17-count for his splinter raise to game opposite a 1-level response.
West has a made a free bid, so should have the odd high card. Let's give him a 3235 6-count.
That leaves East with a 7231 8-count, a couple of aces short of a strong jump overcall.

Helene used the phrase "very implausible". I used the phrase "virtually impossible". Are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not come up with bizarre psyches, such as making a take-out double on a normal pre-empetive 3♠ overcall hand? If so, I'll change my assessment of the probability of this layout to "completely impossible".

So the question is: are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not psyched when assessing the logical alternatives?

One major flaw here is that if 1♥ was explained at the time (this was a possibility in the opening post) then it is plausible that EW have a five-five or better spade fit and you might still hear 2♣. Only a weak or so ago I had five good hearts in response to my partner's double and was deflected to bidding another suit when the opponent (a solid citizen) responded 1♥.

[Chris L]

jallerton, on 2011-February-18, 10:28, said:

I don't think North should be allowed to remember his system unless there is no even vaguely plausible explanation for the 3♠ bid.

Clearly, if there is any significant chance that 3♠ might be a cue bid agreeing hearts, then 4♣ must be a logical alternative (though even a 9-card spade fit East/West is quite hard to believe if West would normally overcall 1♠ in preference to a take-out double with 5 of them).

Perhaps my conclusion on the meaning of 3♠ is biased by my own agreements. With most partners, I do not play splinters in competiton, other than in suits bid by opponents. I play 1♦ P 1♠ (2♥) 4♣ as natural and game forcing. My competitive system file with a couple of partners even states that non-jump new suit reverses at the 3-level are very strong but NF (e.g. 1♣ P 1♦ 2♠ 3♥). My "lunatic" view is only one answer, which is why I am curious to know how widely the TD consulted and how he came to his "no logical alternative" conclusion.

The TD told me he had consulted before deciding on the question of the 3NT bid. I think, but cannot be certain, that he said "a couple" (which, in colloquial English, and before people start jumping up and down about that, rarely means exactly two) or he may have said "a few". Given the timings, he wouldn't have had time to do much more - there was an interval of ten minutes between matches 6 and 7 and this table was the last to finish in our match v Surrey; I don't know when in that match this board arose nor when, precisely, our pair asked for a ruling. Part of that interval would have been taken up by the need to check all the scores were in and to post the results on the board. Once the last match started, the number of players available to consult (not all of whom would have been "peers" of North) would have been a maximum of four. The TD called me away from the table at which I was watching in our last match about half way through the match and gave me his ruling then.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-February-19, 03:30, said:

So the question is: are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not psyched when assessing the logical alternatives?

When partner overcalls 1NT at favourable vulnerability, we are not allowed to assume an opponent has not psyched even if the alternative means there are 50 points in the pack. When the opponents overcall 1NT after partner has opened third in hand, we are not allowed to guess that partner is acting. This thread seems the same principle.

But I also think 3S being natural is by far the least likely option. The doubler can be, say, a 5-4-1-3 ten count, pretty much what he had. The 2C bid can be something like 5-0-4-4 and has heard spades bid on his right, and does not believe 2S would be natural and does not want to bid it if it is. He has some 5 count with a bit of shape. That leaves the opener with the 1-4-6-2 16 count - much as you gave him. Now you may say that it is more likely the doubler will overcall 1S, but you know this is not the layout from the UI. In addition we have the possibility that 3S is not a splinter, but is either a cue bid, or a hand too good to raise to 4H; I would think these were more likely than a splinter, if I did not have UI. These only have to be logical alternative treatments for it to be wrong to discount them. So I think you are wrong in assessing "natural and forcing" as anything other than vaguely possible.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 04:54, said:

The 2C bid can be something like 5-0-4-4 and has heard spades bid on his right, and does not believe 2S would be natural and does not want to bid it if it is. He has some 5 count with a bit of shape.

It seems that you are so busy looking for the next poster to insult that you do not bother to try to understand what anybody else writes. I repeat: from North's point of view, North has shown hearts and all his logical alternatives must be assessed on that basis.

If your partner opens 1♦, RHO doubles, you bid 1♥ (natural) and LHO bids 2♣, how many spades do you expect your LHO to have? Five?!? Many experts prefer to bid a 4-card major ahead of a 5-card minor in this position, yet you are expecting an opponent to bid a 4-card club suit ahead of a 5-card spade suit, when your side has just bid diamonds and hearts.

At last, one of your numerous posts to this thread becomes relevant.

lamford, on 2011-February-17, 18:36, said:

Please don't try to treat the readers of this forum as imbeciles by writing such nonsense.